We think they do and have argued this a lot. Most notably here: https://areomagazine.com/2017/08/22/a-manifesto-against-the-enemies-of-modernity/ …
However, as well as arguing for the benefits of evidence, reason & liberal ethics, we can also show ppl who think they are already valued in grievance studies that they are not
@willwilkinson
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I worry you guys are in over your heads. There's a lot of disagreement about what counts as evidence, how best to weigh it; what ethics *is*, what it's for, what consistency means in that domain. It feels like you want to skip the hard work and declare victory over rival views.
-
This whole debate about constructivism seems like a red herring.
@willwilkinson is right that plenty of serious philosophers are constructivists. But most of them don't think dog parks reproduce rape culture, or that men fantasizing about women is a form of sexual violence. -
Put another way, it appears as if this particular sub-set of constructivists are willing to believe things that are facially absurd. That's all the hoax was trying to illustrate.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
There's always a relevant Scott Alexander essay
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands-for-rigor/ …pic.twitter.com/4BRzai6yAD
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Have you had any responses that suggest you (accidentally?) came up with good ideas, despite that not being the intention.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.